Did the Bulls play better those first three games without Zach? What I've seen is that with Zac, the Bulls were consistently losing games that they shouldn't (but not saying that it was his fault…but who knows…at least I don't), and without him, the Bulls then played 3 really good games. What does that tell me?
To watch more carefully. I think we dispelled that better without Zach narrative with the Cleveland debacle Wednesday. But I have this theory about some fans who I understand are frustrated with the losing record. But then often suggest getting rid of someone like LaVine, who is the team's most talented player. The psychology of sports generally is there's such an emotional attachment—fans saying we and us when talking about the team even though they are not on the team payroll—because it ennobles them to be associated with the team, assuming, of course, the team is successful. Thus the wild celebrations with a championship. Not only is the team a winner, but you become a winner, too, by association. But I also believe some fans actually prefer their team to lose. Not because they see themselves as losers, but because there's this fatalism about their lives, that things go wrong so often and so often they are disappointed by their lack of success or the success of others that they secretly want their team to lose, thus also to suffer. So they are not the only ones not to succeed. The team doesn't succeed, either, so they can feel somewhat enriched watching the defeat of the team, its coach, its management. And then enabling them to complain about the team or coach. In effect suggesting they would be better at it. So the team has to continue to fail. Otherwise, those fans would also be losers while the team and its base were just another who succeeded instead of them. Thus trade Zach, dump Vucevic, fire Billy.
On the basketball side, most of these criticisms about Zach usually come down to ball hog/scorer. Just to set the record straight, he averaged more points and takes fewer shots than Kyrie Irving, Donovan Mitchell and Jayson Tatum. All players most fans would love to have in free agency. LaVine averages about a point less than Damian Lillard and Bradley Beal, but they need two to three shots more per game for that point. Again, free agency fantasies. Plus, Zach doesn't get a fair whistle. I'm a fan of NBA officials, but they aren't good with great athleticism. They see a guy get through contact because he's so fast they don't believe it's a factor. Derrick Rose had a similar experience. Sort of like with Shaq. He never got as many fouls called as he should have because he never looked like the contact bothered him. Plus Zach averages at least five assists and five rebounds pe rgame, and Beal, Irving, Mitchell and Lillard do not. Recommendation: Keep Zach.